God Loves… Himself

The teaching that used to be considered as absolutely vital and yet is ignored today is the teaching on the impotence, utter helplessness, and the spiritual inability of man. It is this that Luther was referring to when he wrote The Bondage of the Will. It is this doctrine that Luther thought was the real issue between Semi-Pelagianism (now called Arminianism) and the doctrines of the Reformation. It is because of this teaching that Luther thought Semi-Pelagian teaching was worse than Pelagianism. It is this issue that is the so-called continental divide between Arminian theology and Reformed theology regardless of the title of the theology that a person holds to. If a person in reality denies the bondage of the will and the spiritual inability and helplessness of man, that person is an Arminian or Pelagian in reality. In the modern day we have allowed sloppy thinking and the desire to please men to allow us to cover over these issues and virtually ignore them in the Gospel and everyday life.

A.W. Pink sets out how important this really is.

“It is of the utmost importance that people should clearly understand and be made thoroughly aware of their spiritual impotence, for thus alone is a foundation laid for bringing them to see and feel their imperative need of divine grace for salvation. So long as sinners think they have it in their own power to deliver themselves from their death in trespasses and sins, they will never come to Christ that they might have life, for “the whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.” So long as people imagine they labor under no insuperable inability to comply with the call of the gospel, they never will be conscious of their entire dependence on Him alone who is able to work in them “all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power” (II Thess 1:11). So long as the creature is puffed up with a sense of his own ability to respond to God’s requirements, he will never become a suppliant at the footstool of divine mercy.”

The importance of the above statement as it sets out the meaning of Luther and the other Reformers can hardly be ignored. In other words, it is absolutely vital to tell people and teach them so that they understand with clarity and are thoroughly aware of their spiritual impotence. It is only when this is done that they will begin to understand the need for divine grace to save them totally and not just make up what they cannot do. In the modern day people think that salvation is in their own hands and power to obtain so they go on in life thinking that they can do it as they please. So they go on living at enmity with God and hardening their hearts in sin while thinking that at any moment they can be saved if they will just pray a prayer or make a decision. The evangelism that teaches this is no friend of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that saves by grace alone through faith alone. Let us never think for a moment that the teaching concerning the human will is nothing less than utterly vital.

Pelagian and Arminian theology deny the spiritual impotence of human beings to various degrees. To the degree that any person, whether professing to be Reformed or not, denies how utterly vital this is to the Gospel, is the degree that person denies grace alone and Christ alone in justification by faith alone. In other words, to deny the impotence and helplessness of the human will in the Gospel is to deny Christ alone, grace alone, and faith alone. Mr. Portela does not set these things out like this, but in fact he must deal with issues like this for his article to even be intelligible. It is not the theological heading as such that is important, it is the Gospel that is important. By definition the Arminian and the Pelagian deny the utter spiritual impotence of the human being. If Luther (and Scripture) is right about the nature of the Gospel and the vital link that human inability has to the Gospel, then we cannot ignore this issue any longer and should never have ignored it to begin with.

Again, it is not prideful to consider a person who asserts that a human being denying the Gospel is not a Christian. It is not prideful to assert that a person who holds to Pelagianism is not a Christian. Where are we to draw the line? Justification by faith alone in all of the ways it is taught is not in and of itself the Gospel. It is the heart of the Gospel and when it is set out in light of other biblical teachings the glory of God shines through the Gospel. However, we are left again with the Arminian question. We can only say that any person who asserts human ability in the Gospel is not teaching or believing in a Gospel of total grace.

I am responding to an article in the June 07 Banner of Truth magazine. It was written by Solano Portela and is entitled “A Sin That Threatens Calvinists-Spiritual Pride.” In reality, while I am responding to his article, I am also responding to Reformed theology as set out and practiced today and Evangelicalism as a whole.

In the last paragraph of the last BLOG I set this statement: “Let a few more words from the historical introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will sink in: “Justification by faith only is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia” (p. 59). We must never let this type of statement be ignored. What it does is inform us that just because a person holds to justification by faith alone does not mean that a person holds to the biblical teaching of it. Let me say that again in different words. A person can hold to justification by faith alone and mean something quite different than Luther and more importantly the Bible. Justification by faith alone is not stuck out in the middle of the theological world alone. It fits within the Bible as a whole and theology as a whole. We cannot interpret justification by faith alone as if it is apart from grace alone, Christ alone, and to His glory alone. We cannot just hold to a words only version of justification by faith alone but instead we must go to what the intent and meaning of that is.

The article that I am responding to does not seem to recognize this fact. It is indeed prideful to hold to a system of theology as superior if it is not the Gospel and if it does not display the glory of God. Of course that raises many questions that we don’t have time to deal with here, but it is also amazingly prideful of a sinful human being to tolerate a teaching that is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and does not display the glory of God but instead displays the power and sovereignty of man. The issue between Arminian and Reformed theology is not about one having a higher knowledge or not, it is about the Gospel and the glory of God. Indeed this vital issue is being toned down, ignored, and even set aside today but it is still the real issue at hand.

Is the difference between Arminian theology and Reformed theology really over the Gospel? It seems as if that is a mute issue in the modern world where theological precision at vital points has been largely forgotten. It is a wonderful thing to wax eloquent on justification by faith alone as if that alone is what the Gospel is. But it is quite another to deal with the real issues of what the Gospel is. One can preach, teach, and write about justification by faith alone and remain within orthodox theology and still be talking about a different Gospel. One can say that the Arminian believes in justification by faith alone and simply be unaware of what Luther set out as the vital issue concerning justification by faith alone which no Arminian would and could hold to. If someone that claimed to be Arminian affirmed the bondage of the will, that person would not be in line with Arminian theology. If a person claims to be Reformed and yet teaches justification by faith alone in such a way that the will is not a vital part of the teaching, then that person is at best a practical Arminian.

I am quite aware that what I am writing will not be called gracious, tolerant, or winsome. I can only say that those things should never be allowed to water the Gospel down. If we are gracious, tolerant, and winsome and are more concerned about those things than the Gospel, we are idolaters. Graciousness is to be like Christ in proclaiming the Gospel, but it is never an excuse not to proclaim the Gospel. The Gospel of the cross of Jesus Christ is offensive to the religious and the non-religious alike. There are times, and perhaps most of the time, when we cannot be winsome toward God and man at the same time. However, when we truly love God we are always doing what is right and what is really best for the souls of other men. To preach the Gospel in truth means that we are going to be ridiculed and mocked, though we do not try to obtain those from men. There is hardly anything all that offensive about the message of justification by faith alone unless it is applied to the hearts of men like Luther did. He told them that they were sinners dead in their sins and trespasses. He told them that they were at enmity with God and that they could not change their own heart. He told them that they did not have the ability to go to Christ (as indeed Christ said the same thing) but that God had to draw them by grace. Now that is offensive.

The author (and others) that I am responding to must read Luther’s Bondage of the Will carefully before he accuses Reformed people of being prideful because they are not tolerant of other gospels. I am again aware that those are fighting words to many. So be it. The Gospel must be fought over or it will be lost. I am afraid that we are living in a day when being nice has replaced love and being winsome has taken the edge of the truth from the Gospel.

I am responding to an article in the June 07 Banner of Truth magazine. It was written by Solano Portela and is entitled “A Sin That Threatens Calvinists-Spiritual Pride.” In reality, while I am responding to his article, I am also responding to Reformed theology as set out and practiced today and Evangelicalism as a whole.

What does it mean to be tolerant? Some of the synonyms for it are interesting. The word means liberal, broadminded, open-minded, forbearing, understanding, and charitable. Some of the meanings of the word are not acceptable to the believer, but we can settle on charitable. However, we must be very careful. We must never take our practice of being charitable to being broadminded or open- minded in regards to the Gospel. The Gospel is that which all who do not believe it in truth will be damned. It is that vital. Are we to be charitable in regards to many different issues? Of course we are, but that must never extend to the Gospel itself.

Let us think through this issue again and with a little more provocation. What is the real issue between Arminianism and Reformed theology in terms of the Gospel? That is the real and vital question. If there is a difference at that point, then it is a major point regardless of what other differences there are. Are we to be tolerant on the issue of the Gospel? Do we remember Paul’s toleration of different gospels in Galatians 1:6-10? If we hold what Scripture teaches us about the nature of Scripture, then what we have is the level of God’s tolerance toward other gospels as well. As seen from quotes I gave from Luther in the June 21 newsletter, Luther said that the issue revolved around the nature of free-will. In the mind and writings of Luther free-will was directly opposed to a true Gospel of grace and so was opposed to the Gospel.

Let us wade into this issue without trying to water things down. Martin Luther thought that Arminianism and Pelagianism were different gospels than that of the Bible. Let us not pretend that he did not. The real question was whether he was right or wrong on that. Another real issue is what the different theological positions really meant and really mean. It is my position that many that go under the banner of “Arminian” actually operate with Pelagian principles and theology in terms of the gospel. We will never be faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ unless we stand up and say that Pelagianism is heresy and against the Gospel. So this is one point that the Banner article is woefully inadequate on. We cannot go around and extend charity to people until we know what they really believe.

Arminians have slipped into the principles of Pelagianism, but what has filled the void that Arminians have once held? It is my contention that some if not many within the Reformed community are actually more in line with historical Arminianism. What would Luther say about many people in the Reformed community today? I believe he would think that they had more in common with Erasmus than with himself (Luther). Theological precision and biblical fidelity have given way to a weak form of sentimentality and fear of the opinions of men. In Galatians 1:10 Paul noted that if we fear men we do not fear God. The practice of being tolerant, gracious, and winsome can be nothing more than a fear of man and not standing for the Gospel. Let us not use those terms to avoid being ostracized and mocked for the Gospel.

Let a few more words from the historical introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will sink in: “Justification by faith only is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia” (p. 59). If the Gospel of Jesus Christ is centered on justification by faith alone, then we need to be sure that we have the correct understanding of justification. If we don’t understand justification, we don’t understand the Gospel and so do not believe it. This does not mean that we have to understand every part perfectly, but we must understand the essentials. If we are going to say that Luther was correct on the Gospel, then we need to understand what Luther said about the Gospel. It is not enough to have an academic understanding of the issue if we are going to understand it like Luther, but we must see what grace really means in order to know what he meant by the Gospel. I fear that we have little understanding of grace in our day. By that I mean a real experiential understanding of grace that only comes from the depths of the heart when the soul learns it by the experience of a sinful and broken heart. But again, we must take note that justification by faith alone (sola fide) cannot be understood apart from justification by grace alone (sola gratia). Modern Arminian teaching as a whole denies what Luther taught about grace and the will. It is not the same Gospel. Is that intolerant? Luther was intolerant of false gospels and so was John Knox. More importantly, Jesus and Paul were.